Now this may be a played out topic for this area but I was wondering what your opinions are of armed guards or teachers in schools. Now I understand that Obama (as much as it pains me to say) is our president and he ad his family gets more protection then the average person. Now here is what I don't get, Obamas kids have four armed guards that protects his two girls (all carrying multiple weapons) when they go places such as school. Yet he says no to having armed personnel or guards in our schools? In other words it is okay for his kids to be under guard but not for all the kids of the nation? What do you think? Would armed teachers or guards help to protect our students? Although school shootings are rare I think that having a few armed teachers would be enough to stop a situation quite quickly before it would become another tragedy. This should only happen if the armed staff members were fully educated on the weapon they are using, including how the weapons work, how to fire it and safety precautions.

At 1/17/2013 6:13:14 PM, THE_OPINIONATOR wrote:Now this may be a played out topic for this area but I was wondering what your opinions are of armed guards or teachers in schools. Now I understand that Obama (as much as it pains me to say) is our president and he ad his family gets more protection then the average person. Now here is what I don't get, Obamas kids have four armed guards that protects his two girls (all carrying multiple weapons) when they go places such as school. Yet he says no to having armed personnel or guards in our schools? In other words it is okay for his kids to be under guard but not for all the kids of the nation? What do you think? Would armed teachers or guards help to protect our students? Although school shootings are rare I think that having a few armed teachers would be enough to stop a situation quite quickly before it would become another tragedy. This should only happen if the armed staff members were fully educated on the weapon they are using, including how the weapons work, how to fire it and safety precautions.

Ironic isn't it, his political views on guns disintegrate when it comes to the protection of his family.

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

At 1/17/2013 6:13:14 PM, THE_OPINIONATOR wrote:Now this may be a played out topic for this area but I was wondering what your opinions are of armed guards or teachers in schools. Now I understand that Obama (as much as it pains me to say) is our president and he ad his family gets more protection then the average person. Now here is what I don't get, Obamas kids have four armed guards that protects his two girls (all carrying multiple weapons) when they go places such as school. Yet he says no to having armed personnel or guards in our schools? In other words it is okay for his kids to be under guard but not for all the kids of the nation? What do you think? Would armed teachers or guards help to protect our students? Although school shootings are rare I think that having a few armed teachers would be enough to stop a situation quite quickly before it would become another tragedy. This should only happen if the armed staff members were fully educated on the weapon they are using, including how the weapons work, how to fire it and safety precautions.

Ironic isn't it, his political views on guns disintegrate when it comes to the protection of his family.

Yes, and it works against him as well but I think that the laws they are passing are just nonsense. The black market is in business and business is booming my friend.

At 1/17/2013 6:21:18 PM, malcolmxy wrote:A full one third of schools in this country have armed security.

He said no armed teachers.

Find something less stupid to criticize him about and perhaps people would take you more seriously.

Perhaps, but who am I to argue with people and their own opinions of me?

Well, he is a bad president, but people like you pick out these stupid issues, and then you don't even present them truthfully such that you end up making the president look better than he did before your moronic, FOXNews fueled retardicism of him.

I'm "liberal" (not really, but I'm sure that by your standards I am), and I think Obama is only eclipsed by GW Bush in the race for sh!ttiest president of the post-ww2 era, but I hate to criticize him because then I get lumped in with obfuscating dolts like you.

At 1/17/2013 8:20:42 PM, Greyparrot wrote:I guess the other 2/3 of teachers are just out of luck then? Just guessing that many shootings occur at schools with no armed guards but I could be wrong.

Not just could be - are.

Why in the hell do you think these schools have armed guards in the first place? If there wasn't a violent episode involving a gun at the school itself, dollars to donuts there was one elsewhere in the same district.

Not all school shootings involve 22 deaths, or even 1 death, and most of them don't make the news.

Obama's children are protected by armed guards for the same reason Obama himself is protected by armed guards: he's the president. Do you conservatives, who don't even want schools to have up-to-date textbooks, realize what it would cost to extend that protection to everyone?

At 1/18/2013 12:39:38 AM, CarefulNow wrote:Obama's children are protected by armed guards for the same reason Obama himself is protected by armed guards: he's the president. Do you conservatives, who don't even want schools to have up-to-date textbooks, realize what it would cost to extend that protection to everyone?

Nice straw-man... Schools are under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and the state for law enforcement, not the federal government. If schools want armed guards, then their communities that want it should pay for it, not everyone else"s communities. But given how scarce school shootings are, I doubt many communities will find armed guards necessary, but that's their choice to make, not the government's.

At 1/18/2013 12:39:38 AM, CarefulNow wrote:Obama's children are protected by armed guards for the same reason Obama himself is protected by armed guards: he's the president. Do you conservatives, who don't even want schools to have up-to-date textbooks, realize what it would cost to extend that protection to everyone?

Nice straw-man... Schools are under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and the state for law enforcement, not the federal government. If schools want armed guards, then their communities that want it should pay for it, not everyone else"s communities. But given how scarce school shootings are, I doubt many communities will find armed guards necessary, but that's their choice to make, not the government's.

This.

And yes, we know it costs money, but if we're gonna spend money on imperialism and waste, how about allocating those funds to protect are children. Are you really going to put a price on children's safety?

And don't strawman saying we want armed protection for everybody. We want individuals to be able to make the choice of being armed. Protection is for children, adults don't need guards of they have a weapon on them.

And yes, we know it costs money, but if we're gonna spend money on imperialism and waste, how about allocating those funds to protect are children. Are you really going to put a price on children's safety?

You're damn right I am. Are you willing to spend the entire annual GDP SOLELY on keeping children safe. Despite whatcha heard, the little b@stards ain't priceless. In fact, if one were to negligently take the life of another human being, and then be forced to pay damages to that person's surviving family members, the best bargain out there is a small child - $50,000 tops.

A 40-year-old male, on the other hand, could set you back upward of $1 million.

So, if it's about protecting the most valuable members of society, we should have armed guards posted at accounting firms and high tech employers with an average aged employee from 34-40yo.

Kids are almost a dime a dozen, and the great thing about 'em is that if you lose one, it's free to make another one.

Armed guards at schools is a big, giant waste of this money you seem so willing to spend.

Go find something with a positive return on investment to protect and we'll install guns there instead, cool?

And don't strawman saying we want armed protection for everybody. We want individuals to be able to make the choice of being armed. Protection is for children, adults don't need guards of they have a weapon on them.

Not all adults are comfortable with weapons. You gonna make your priest pack heat?

Priests are valuable in that they offer a service to hundreds/thousands per week, but I'm fairly sure that they would be unable to pack a "vengeance stick" under their robes.

So, can we put armed security at all churches and synagogues?

Day Care Centers?

Citizens of my state aren't allowed to carry, even with permit, in a facility dedicated to serving booze (tavern or bar). Now, perhaps the patrons are free not to go out on a given night, but the empolyees shouldn't be forced to switch jobs just because their place of employment is so unprotected, so armed guards are needed at all taverns and bars as well, right?

Kids love amusement parks...I'd personally like to see Mickey Mouse point a .44 Magnum at every suspicious character who even thinks about stepping foot on The Flying Dumbo Ride, wouldn't you?

I know I'm missing some other places we can put guns, guys. Help me out here.

At 1/18/2013 2:42:30 AM, 1Percenter wrote:Nice straw-man... Schools are under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and the state for law enforcement, not the federal government. If schools want armed guards, then their communities that want it should pay for it, not everyone else"s communities. But given how scarce school shootings are, I doubt many communities will find armed guards necessary, but that's their choice to make, not the government's.

First you said they should have to pay for it, then you said it should be their choice. Which is it? Should all kids be protectected or just rich ones?

And there's a related contradiction in the Right's stance on this topic. They often say that schools are targeted instead of, say, police stations, because schools are unarmed. But that's equivalent to saying that the arming of, say, police stations doesn't actually prevent violence, but merely redirects it to, say, schools. The obvious question is, and this can of course be generalized to the broader self-defense argument, why would we then expect the arming of schools to result in anything better than a redirection of the causal violence yet elsewhere--to the institutions that would still lack the means or the paranoia to be armed. So you say it's not about universal protection, but that's indeed what would be necessary, thanks to the dynamic nature of crime.

When you arm yourself, particularly if you advertise such as the gun lobby suggests, and you can write on chalkboard, say, without being disarmed (so as not to relieve the murderer of the chore of finding weapons), and fire more accurately than Lee Harvey Oswald (so as not to relieve the murderer of the chore of killing your students), and shoot to incapacitate, not kill (so as not to relieve the murderer of the suicide portion of the murder suicide), you then threaten others elsewhere with the redirected violence of those you signal to.

Once a critical mass is reached--and that varies from person to person--it will thus cease to be paranoia to arm oneself. The threat of violence concentrated on one due to others' advertised self-defense will at a certain point outweigh the cost, the risk of being disarmed or having an accident, etc., and the prophecy will take another step on the road to self-fulfillment. I for one refuse to carry that myopia, the myopia of the gun buyer, to the social issue of guns.

At 1/18/2013 3:33:33 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:And yes, we know it costs money, but if we're gonna spend money on imperialism and waste, how about allocating those funds to protect are children. Are you really going to put a price on children's safety?

Are you? When the best predictor of violent crime--not just against adults or gorgeous white children, but generally--is inequality, not gun control, is it not worth any inefficiency you might imagine to abolish that inequality?

Ok, so I really kinda buzzed through what you said, since if someone constantly holds something it general means their on a rant, and its gonan be pointless. However, I got this gist, which is that simple because children on average = 40k to the USFG, and some technician can = millions or more, that means we should protect them more.

Well firstly, I've yet to hear of a major company that doesn't have this crazy thing called security. Maybe some don't, but the vast majority I suspect do. Most decent sized buildings do. So, yeah, most adults are pretty well protected depending on the environment.

And using your logic, we should protect things based purely on the money it's worth. So, using your logic, children are the most logical thing to protect. They have the greatest potential to be a great help to society. Technicians aren't in danger. Kids in school can be. Taking one cop off the force, or adding one more job to protect the school, maybe more than one, isn't gonna set the nation back much as a whole.

And hey, newsflash Malcolm, day care centers and amusement parks haven't been shown to be targets yet. Plus, amusement parks also have fvcking security. If your naive enough to think that if someone pulled a gun in Disney World and started shooting people, he wouldn't be shot dead shortly after by security, then I'm done talking to you.

At 1/18/2013 11:22:11 AM, OberHerr wrote:And using your logic, we should protect things based purely on the money it's worth. So, using your logic, children are the most logical thing to protect. They have the greatest potential to be a great help to society. Technicians aren't in danger. Kids in school can be. Taking one cop off the force, or adding one more job to protect the school, maybe more than one, isn't gonna set the nation back much as a whole.

But that's not the issue. No one's suggesting putting professional armed guards everywhere; poor people, at least, whatever the age, just aren't worth it. The subject is arming teachers who're already on the payroll, after a few sessions at the shooting range prove they're action heroes. So malcolm's armed Mickey Mouse is more analogous than the current state of amusement park security. Incidentally, a young adult has every bit the potential of a child and none of the costs of actualizing it. If they deserve more protection (and I agree they do), it's because they're more vulnerable, not because they're more valuable.

At 1/18/2013 11:25:07 AM, OberHerr wrote:And hey, newsflash Malcolm, day care centers and amusement parks haven't been shown to be targets yet. Plus, amusement parks also have fvcking security. If your naive enough to think that if someone pulled a gun in Disney World and started shooting people, he wouldn't be shot dead shortly after by security, then I'm done talking to you.

You wanna wait until they are? Are you willing to take that chance with our precious children? This is about prevention, right? And, your premise is that guns prevent gun violence (sorry...give me a sec to chuckle at the sheer ridiculousness of this hypothesis...OK...I'm done now), right?

If so, then I say let's put a gun every place we put a kid. It's the only way to ensure their safety, right?

Ok, so I really kinda buzzed through what you said, since if someone constantly holds something it general means their on a rant, and its gonan be pointless. However, I got this gist, which is that simple because children on average = 40k to the USFG, and some technician can = millions or more, that means we should protect them more.

Well firstly, I've yet to hear of a major company that doesn't have this crazy thing called security. Maybe some don't, but the vast majority I suspect do. Most decent sized buildings do. So, yeah, most adults are pretty well protected depending on the environment.

Armed security? I've worked for corporations in high rise buildings that housed consulates of foreign countries and there wasn't an armed guard in the entire building.

A magnet ID card ain't gonna stop a shooter, right? But, if you want to emulate this security scheme for schools, then you don't want guns in schools, and you do want guns in schools, right?

And using your logic, we should protect things based purely on the money it's worth. So, using your logic, children are the most logical thing to protect. They have the greatest potential to be a great help to society. Technicians aren't in danger. Kids in school can be. Taking one cop off the force, or adding one more job to protect the school, maybe more than one, isn't gonna set the nation back much as a whole.

Value, currently, is determined by cost. A child's life has the least cost in society, currently, when compared to any other demographic. They are literally the most worthless members of our society, based on the market economics I have to assume you espouse as the optimal economic system.

At 1/18/2013 11:25:07 AM, OberHerr wrote:And hey, newsflash Malcolm, day care centers and amusement parks haven't been shown to be targets yet. Plus, amusement parks also have fvcking security. If your naive enough to think that if someone pulled a gun in Disney World and started shooting people, he wouldn't be shot dead shortly after by security, then I'm done talking to you.

You wanna wait until they are? Are you willing to take that chance with our precious children? This is about prevention, right? And, your premise is that guns prevent gun violence (sorry...give me a sec to chuckle at the sheer ridiculousness of this hypothesis...OK...I'm done now), right?

If so, then I say let's put a gun every place we put a kid. It's the only way to ensure their safety,

At 1/18/2013 11:25:07 AM, OberHerr wrote:And hey, newsflash Malcolm, day care centers and amusement parks haven't been shown to be targets yet. Plus, amusement parks also have fvcking security. If your naive enough to think that if someone pulled a gun in Disney World and started shooting people, he wouldn't be shot dead shortly after by security, then I'm done talking to you.

You wanna wait until they are? Are you willing to take that chance with our precious children? This is about prevention, right? And, your premise is that guns prevent gun violence (sorry...give me a sec to chuckle at the sheer ridiculousness of this hypothesis...OK...I'm done now), right?

If so, then I say let's put a gun every place we put a kid. It's the only way to ensure their safety,

Well, just like more cars on the road increase the likelihood of more drunk drivers being on the road, more guns increase the likelihood of more gun violence taking place.

Guns don't kill people, but they make it a hell of a lot easier for those who do, to do so.

If we are to allow people to operate their own method of transportation, we know that a certain number of them will do so while in a condition in which they shouldn't, but because of the net social gain of transportation, we allow for this risk because of what a drag n society outlawing cars would be.

Because there is actually a net social loss from adding more guns into the mix (the increased gun violence we know will occur FAR outweighs the modicum of protection they offer, though I understand they make one FEEL as if they are secure), it is stupid to add more guns to any situation where stopping gun violence is the goal.

At 1/18/2013 11:25:07 AM, OberHerr wrote:And hey, newsflash Malcolm, day care centers and amusement parks haven't been shown to be targets yet. Plus, amusement parks also have fvcking security. If your naive enough to think that if someone pulled a gun in Disney World and started shooting people, he wouldn't be shot dead shortly after by security, then I'm done talking to you.

You wanna wait until they are? Are you willing to take that chance with our precious children? This is about prevention, right? And, your premise is that guns prevent gun violence (sorry...give me a sec to chuckle at the sheer ridiculousness of this hypothesis...OK...I'm done now), right?

If so, then I say let's put a gun every place we put a kid. It's the only way to ensure their safety,

Well, just like more cars on the road increase the likelihood of more drunk drivers being on the road, more guns increase the likelihood of more gun violence taking place.

Guns don't kill people, but they make it a hell of a lot easier for those who do, to do so.

If we are to allow people to operate their own method of transportation, we know that a certain number of them will do so while in a condition in which they shouldn't, but because of the net social gain of transportation, we allow for this risk because of what a drag n society outlawing cars would be.

Because there is NOT actually a net social loss from adding more guns into the mix (the increased gun violence we know will occur FAR outweighs the modicum of protection they offer, though I understand they make one FEEL as if they are secure), it is stupid to add more guns to any situation where stopping gun violence is the goal.

Well, it's obvious that drunkards would be far less dangerous if there were no automobiles. It's been decided, though, that automobiles are worth the risk of drunk driving (people rely on them to get to work and soforth). Guns, on the other hand, have rather whimsical value, and are thus more like drunk driving itself, which is outlawed because it isn't worth the risk of accidents.

At 1/18/2013 1:35:28 PM, CarefulNow wrote:Well, it's obvious that drunkards would be far less dangerous if there were no automobiles. It's been decided, though, that automobiles are worth the risk of drunk driving (people rely on them to get to work and soforth). Guns, on the other hand, have rather whimsical value, and are thus more like drunk driving itself, which is outlawed because it isn't worth the risk of accidents.

At 1/18/2013 1:35:28 PM, CarefulNow wrote:Well, it's obvious that drunkards would be far less dangerous if there were no automobiles. It's been decided, though, that automobiles are worth the risk of drunk driving (people rely on them to get to work and soforth). Guns, on the other hand, have rather whimsical value, and are thus more like drunk driving itself, which is outlawed because it isn't worth the risk of accidents.

sorry, I missed malcolm's post.

Sh!t, don't apologize. After disagreeing with you around economics, it's nice to see that we have an area of agreement, and it's also helpful to display a sense of logic that is in lockstep (and, actually logical) independent of one another.

Maybe those who must compromise their values to support various opposing views as part of a dogmatic belief system they treat like religion will catch on this way.

At 1/18/2013 1:35:28 PM, CarefulNow wrote:Well, it's obvious that drunkards would be far less dangerous if there were no automobiles. It's been decided, though, that automobiles are worth the risk of drunk driving (people rely on them to get to work and soforth). Guns, on the other hand, have rather whimsical value, and are thus more like drunk driving itself, which is outlawed because it isn't worth the risk of accidents.

I'm not an advocate of gun rights, but to play devil's advocate, guns arguably deter crime by making criminals afraid, and also act to deter government tyranny. I don't agree, but labelling guns as having mere whimsical value does ignore a lot of arguments, not the mention the rationale behind the 2nd amendment in the first place.